DOI10 1016-j Heliyon 2016 E00208

Received:
24 June 2016
Revised:
A novel bilateral lower
8 November 2016
Accepted:
24 November 2016
extremity mirror therapy
Heliyon 2 (2016) e00208 intervention for individuals
with stroke
Lucas D. Crosby a,c, Stephanie Marrocco a, Janet Brown b , Kara K. Patterson b,c,d,e, *
a
Faculty of Health and Rehabilitation Science, Western University, London, ON, Canada
b
School of Physical Therapy, Western University, London, ON, Canada
c
Rehabilitation Science Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
d
Department of Physical Therapy, University of Toronto, Toronto ON, Canada
e
Toronto Rehab, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada
* Corresponding author at: University of Toronto, 160500 University Avenue,Toronto, ON, M5 G 1V7, Canada.
E-mail address: kara.patterson@utoronto.ca (K.K. Patterson).
Abstract
Despite improvements made in stroke rehabilitation, motor impairment and gait

deficits persist at discharge. New interventions are needed. Mirror therapy has
promise as one element of a rehabilitation program. The primary objectives were to
1) describe a bilateral, lower extremity mirror therapy (LE-MT) device and training
protocol and 2) investigate the feasibility of LE-MT. A LE-MT device was
constructed to train bilateral LE movements for 30 min, 3 times/week for 4 weeks,
as an adjunct to physiotherapy in three individuals post-stroke. Sessions were
digitally recorded and reviewed to extract feasibility measures; repetitions, rests
and session duration. Pre and post measures of gait and motor impairment were
taken. Two participants completed 100% of the sessions and a third completed 83%
due to a recurrence of pre-existing back pain. Repetitions increased and session
duration was maintained. Number of rests decreased for two participants and
increased for one participant. Participants reported fatigue and mild muscle
soreness but also that the intervention was tolerable. Positive gait changes included
increased velocity and decreased variability. LE motor impairment also improved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2016.e00208
2405-8440/ 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Article No~e00208
A bilateral LE-MT adjunct intervention for stroke is feasible and may have positive
effects. A history of low back pain should be a precaution.
Keywords: Health sciences, Medicine, Rehabilitation
1. Introduction
Impairments in strength, coordination, and balance lead to gait complications post-
stroke [1] and improving gait is the number one rehabilitation goal stated by
individuals with stroke [2]. Despite improvements made with rehabilitation, post-
stroke gait remains slower, more variable, and asymmetric compared to healthy
adults [3, 4, 5]. Therefore, new approaches to gait rehabilitation are required to
improve outcomes. It is likely that the most effective approach is comprised of
exercises and interventions that specifically address stroke-related deficits
contributing to gait dysfunction [6]. Mirror therapy (MT) has promise as one
element of such a multidimensional gait rehabilitation program. First used in the
mid-1990s to treat phantom limb pain [7], it has since been adopted for the
treatment of a variety of conditions including stroke [8, 9, 10].
The main goal of MT is to provide visual feedback about the affected limb
movement which is generated from the mirror reflection of unaffected limb
movement [11]. Visual information is critical to the performance and monitoring of
skilled movements including postural control [12] and gait [13]. Furthermore,
based on evidence of neuroplastic reorganization in the absence of sensory input, it
has been suggested that sensory input is integral to the preservation of cortical
representations and therefore motor function following stroke [14]. It is proposed
that MT acts to restore the correspondence between motor output (commands sent
to the affected limb) and sensory input (visual feedback of the affected limb
moving as commanded) [11], and thus enhances recovery of motor control in the
affected limb. Motor outcomes associated with upper limb MT include motor
recovery as measured by the Brunnstrom stages and Fugl-Meyer [15, 16, 17], and
improved speed and accuracy of movement [10] (see Thieme et al. [18],
Rothgangel et al. [19] and Ezendam et al. [20] for reviews).
Despite success with MT in the upper limb post-stroke, there is little work on the
benefits of MT for the lower extremities (LE-MT). One randomized controlled trial
(RCT) of a MT intervention that used ankle dorsiflexion movement for 5 days a
week, 2 to 5 h a day, for 4 weeks in individuals with chronic stroke reported
improved motor recovery and functional independence, but no difference in
functional ambulation category (FAC) [21]. A second RCT included six LE-MT
exercises for individuals with acute stroke for 30 min a day, six days a week, for
two weeks [22]. Findings included improved ambulation as measured by FAC but
no differences between groups in Brunnel Balance Assessment scores or motor
recovery [22].
2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2016.e00208
Article No~e00208
Both of these studies demonstrate the potential for LE-MT to improve motor
recovery, balance and gait outcomes post-stroke. But there is an opportunity for
improvement. Both previous MT studies employed unilateral movements of the
non-paretic LE only. The paretic LE remained inactive throughout the MT
intervention. We questioned whether bilateral LE movements could be combined
with MT to improve outcomes. Bilateral movement training of the upper
extremities post-stroke is associated with increased activation of the non-affected
motor cortex during paretic UE movements [23] and during MT [24] compared to
unilateral training. This is because bilateral movements involve a facilitory drive
from the intact hemisphere to increase excitability in motor pathways of the paretic
limb [25]. Therefore, we proposed that coupling bilateral LE movements with the
visual feedback about the affected LE movement provided by the mirror would
improve outcomes achieved with MT. Since the emphasis in MT is on the visual
feedback created by the mirror, the paretic LE movements occurring behind the
mirror (and obscured from the patients view) need not be exact. Rather, it is the
best attempt by the individual to move the LE [10] and the associated descending
motor command that are required [11].
Abnormal muscle activation timing, increased passive tone and spasticity act to
resist joint movement and interfere with voluntary motor control of the affected LE
following a stroke [26]. These factors may explain why the previous studies of MT
for the LE [21], [22] chose to train unilateral movement of the unaffected LE only.
Therefore, the challenge of our proposed combination of bilateral LE movement
training with MT was to design a device that facilitated movement of the affected
LE behind the mirror. Furthermore, it was important to determine whether such an
intervention involving bilateral LE movement could be tolerated by individuals
with stroke. To our knowledge, the combination of bilateral training with MT post-
stroke has not been investigated for the LE before. Therefore, the primary objective
of this study was to investigate the feasibility of a bilateral LE-MT intervention. A
secondary objective was to explore pre- to post- intervention changes in
spatiotemporal gait parameters and motor impairment.
2. Materials and methods

Participants were individuals with stroke receiving outpatient physiotherapy from a
private clinic. They were selected for inclusion in the study by their
physiotherapist, who was privy to the study objectives and intervention protocol.
To be included in the study participants had to: 1) be greater than 3 months post
unilateral stroke, 2) be able to walk independently for 10 m, and 3) have a Chedoke
McMaster Stroke Assessment (CMSA) leg and foot score of 2 or greater. The study
was approved by the local Research Ethics Board and all participants provided
written informed consent to participate in the LE-MT intervention and pre-post
assessments. After participants completed the study, separate informed consent
Article No~e00208
was obtained to review their physiotherapy documentation. These clinical notes

were reviewed retrospectively to determine the number of physiotherapy visits and
types of exercises and training activities the participant received while enrolled in
the MT intervention.
2.1. Bilateral lower extremity mirror therapy device

Bilateral LE-MT is MT that involves volitional movement of the paretic LE behind
the mirror performed simultaneously with unaffected LE movement and has not
been studied previously to the best of our knowledge. The LE-MT device (Fig. 1a)
designed for the investigational purposes of this study cost approximately $500 in
materials and took 4 h to construct. The device includes a base constructed of wood
that securely houses the mirror in a vertical position and two slider boards on either
side which facilitate the bilateral LE movement. The base also houses a vertical
[(Fig._1)TD$IG]
Fig. 1. The device used for the LE-MT intervention (a). The recording view of the intervention (b).
Article No~e00208
wall made of styrofoam. Attached to the mirror and draped over the styrofoam
wall, is a black curtain which serves to obscure the affected LE movement from the
participants view.
2.2. Bilateral lower extremity mirror therapy intervention

The LE-MT intervention involved 12 sessions completed over a 4 week period.
The intervention sessions were conducted as an adjunct to each participants
conventional physiotherapy which continued throughout the study. Given the
eventual intended application of the current MT intervention (as one component of
a multidimensional gait rehabilitation program), administering MT as an adjunct to
participants usual therapy was appropriate.
The device was positioned so that the mirror was between the LEs with the affected
extremity obstructed from view by a black curtain. The participants feet were
secured in heel blocks of slider boards. In long-sitting, the participants performed
simultaneous bilateral LE flexion-extension movements at the hip and knee while
viewing the reflection of unaffected limb on the mirrors surface. Participants were
instructed to perform the movements with the affected LE behind the mirror to the
best of their ability [10]. Participants were also instructed to perform as many
repetitions as they could, at their own pace and to take rests as needed. The goal for
session duration was 30 min but ultimately depended upon participant tolerance.
Since greater intensity of training (defined here by number of repetitions) enhances
functional recovery after stroke [27] participants were allowed to complete as
many repetitions as they could until fatigue or the 30 min was complete.
A study investigator (LC) observed all sessions for every participant. At the
beginning of each session, LC questioned participants about their tolerance of the
previous session and then monitored for fatigue throughout the session by
soliciting self-reported level of fatigue from the participant. MT requires that the
affected LE is obscured from the patients view so an illusion of intact movement
is created by the mirror. However, we required the ability to monitor the movement
of the affected LE behind the mirror in order to assess the number of repetitions.
Therefore, sessions were also recorded with a digital video camera positioned at
the individuals midline in such a way that both LEs were in view (Fig. 1b). This
recording ensured an accurate count of repetitions performed and rest periods
taken.
2.3. Intervention feasibility

We were interested in determining the potential use of the bilateral LE-MT
intervention post-stroke. To verify the interventions potential use, we looked to
ensure that the desired bilateral LE movements could be completed by the
Article No~e00208
participants and that the intervention was well tolerated. Therefore, we defined
feasibility as: a) adherence to the training protocol, b) an increase or maintenance
of the number of bilateral movement repetitions performed over the intervention
period, c) a maintenance or decrease in the number of rest periods accumulated per
session over the intervention period, and d) positive subjective report of tolerance
from the participants with stroke.
Feasibility measures were extracted from the session recordings. These were
viewed by a study investigator (LC) who recorded the number of repetitions
completed and the amount of rest periods taken. A repetition was defined as one
simultaneous and synchronous flexion and extension movement of both LEs. Out
of sync movements were not counted as this was believed to indicate the illusion
of MT was lost and thus the goal of MT was not being achieved. Comparable
range of motion in the affected limb to the unaffected limb was not expected but
some activation in the affected limb was required. A rest period was defined as a
stop from movement for any amount of time in excess of 10 s. A second study
investigator (SM) viewed 3 randomly selected recordings (one from each
participant) and recorded repetitions and rest periods using the same criteria. The
average percent difference in recorded repetitions and rest periods between
investigators was 1.1% and 5.7% respectively.
2.4. Measuring change in gait and motor impairment

To address the secondary study objective, gait and motor impairment were
measured before (BASE) and after (POST) completion of the LE-MT
intervention. Over-ground spatiotemporal gait parameters were measured with a
pressure-sensitive mat (Protokinetics, Havertown, PA, USA). Participants
performed 4 walking trials each at their preferred and fastest possible pace with
their customary gait aid (if applicable). The parameters were averaged over the 4
trials and included gait velocity, step length and swing time variability (standard
deviation, SD) [28], and step length and swing time symmetry [29]. Symmetry is
calculated as the ratio of the affected and unaffected limb values for step length in
centimeters and swing time in seconds, with the larger value in the numerator as
per published recommendations [29]. Stroke severity was characterized with the
National Institutes of Stroke Scale (NIHSS) [30] and motor impairment of the leg
was measured with the CMSA leg and foot [31].
Change scores were calculated for each of the measures over the LE-MT
intervention period as follows: CHANGE = POST BASE. Changes in velocity
and variability were reported in terms of multiples of the meaningful clinical
importance difference (MCID) values; 6 cm/s for velocity, 0.25 cm for step
length variability and 0.01 s for swing time variability [32], [33]. Since MCIDs
Article No~e00208
were not available for gait symmetry, changes were analyzed in reference to the
reported upper confidence interval thresholds for symmetry ratios in step length
(1.08) and swing time (1.06) [29]. A ratio greater than the threshold indicates
asymmetric gait.
2.5. Participants
Participant 1 was a 56 year old female 43 months post-stroke with left hemiparesis
and walked with a cane. Baseline NIHSS and CMSA scores are outlined in
Table 1. Her physiotherapy goals included improved balance and left LE function.
The intervention period lasted 29 days. During this period she received 9 visits of
physiotherapy which included treadmill, bike and elliptical training, balance
training, and strengthening of the LEs.
Participant 2 was a 48 year old female 54 months post-stroke with left hemiparesis
and walked with a cane. NIHSS and CMSA scores at baseline are summarized in
Table 1. Her therapy goals were to improve gait and walk without her cane. The
intervention period lasted 29 days. During this period she received 8 visits of
physiotherapy which included LE strengthening and stretching exercises, treadmill
and bike training, mobilization with activator pole, and balance training including
yoga.
Participant 3 was a 69 year old male 58 months post-stroke with left hemiparesis
and walked without an aid. Baseline NIHSS and CMSA values are outlined in
Table 1. The intervention period lasted 27 days. He received 2 visits of
physiotherapy during this period. After he completed the MT intervention and
POST assessment he discontinued his conventional physiotherapy for personal
reasons. As a result, he could not be contacted and therefore we were unable to
obtain retrospective consent specifically for the chart review.
Table 1. Summary of clinical measure scores.
NIHSS CMSA (leg/foot)
BASE POST BASE POST
Participant 1 4 3 5/4 6/4

NIHSS = National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale, CMSA = Chedoke McMaster Stroke Assessment.
Article No~e00208
3. Results
3.1. Intervention feasibility
The LE-MT intervention was completed with 100% adherence by Participants 1
and 2 with no adverse events observed during the sessions or reported by the
participants. Participant 3 completed 83% of sessions. He missed the final two
sessions due to an acute recurrence of pre-existing back pain. However, Participant
3 did return to complete the POST assessment session. All participants reported
fatigue following each session and mild muscle soreness the day after a session, but
also reported that the intervention was tolerable.
The number of movement repetitions, rests and session duration per LE-MT
session are displayed for each participant in Fig. 2. The number of repetitions
(mean (standard deviation)) was greater in the final session (937 (141)) compared
[(Fig._2)TD$IG]
Fig. 2. Performance during LE-MT intervention. a. duration of each LE-MT session; b. number of
repetitions completed per LE-MT session; and c. number of rest periods taken per LE-MT session for
Participant 1 (solid line), Participant 2 (dotted line), and Participant 3 (dashed line).
Article No~e00208
to the first session (531 (44)) across all three participants. The number of rests for
the first and last session was 6 and 31 for Participant 1, 10 and 1 for Participant 2
and 12 and 11 for Participant 3, respectively. Session duration increased from the
first session to the last (Participants 1 and 3), or was maintained at 30 min
throughout the intervention period (Participant 2).
3.2. Observed performance during LE-MT

For Sessions 1 through 7 Participant 1 completed movement repetitions and took
rests as needed until she ultimately terminated the session due to fatigue. For
Sessions 8 through 12 Participant 1 performed repetitions in blocks of 25 which
was always followed by a rest. This pattern would carry on until she terminated the
session due to fatigue. Participant 2 completed movement repetitions and took rests
as needed until the session duration goal of 30 min was reached. She performed the
repetitions in this manner for all MT sessions. Participant 3 completed movement
repetitions and took rests as needed until he either terminated the session due to
fatigue (sessions 1 and 3) or until the session duration goal of 30 min was reached.
[(Fig._3)TD$IG]
Fig. 3. Spatiotemporal gait parameters (a. gait velocity; b. step length variability (SD); c. swing time
variability (SD); d. step length symmetry; e. swing time symmetry measured at each assessment time
point (BASE and POST) for the preferred pace with usual walking aid condition for Participant 1 (solid
line), Participant 2 (dotted line) and Participant 3 (dashed line). SD = standard deviation; ST = symmetry
threshold.
Article No~e00208
3.3. Changes in gait and motor impairment

Gait parameters (velocity, variability and symmetry) measured at BASE and POST
are summarized in Fig. 3 (preferred pace condition) and Fig. 4 (fast pace condition)
for all three participants. Change in gait parameters as measured by multiples of
MCID values for each participant are summarized in Table 2. Motor impairment
scores (NIHSS and CMSA) at BASE and POST are summarized for each
participant in Table 1.
4. Discussion
This study demonstrated that a 4 week bilateral LE-MT adjunct intervention can be
administered to individuals with chronic stroke. By the last LE-MT session, all
participants performed a greater number of repetitions compared to their initial
session. It is important to emphasize that this intervention combined MT with
bilateral training of LE movements which to our knowledge is the first post-stroke
MT intervention for the LE to do so. While previous MT interventions for the UE
incorporated bilateral movements [10], those for the LE have employed unilateral
movement of the unaffected limb only [21], [22]. In the present study, participants
[(Fig._4)TD$IG]
Fig. 4. Spatiotemporal gait parameters (a. gait velocity; b. step length variability (SD); c. swing time
variability (SD); d. step length symmetry; e. swing time symmetry measured at each assessment time
point (BASE and POST) for the fast pace with usual walking aid condition for Participant 1 (solid line),
Participant 2 (dotted line) and Participant 3 (dashed line). SD = standard deviation; ST = symmetry
threshold.
11
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2016.e00208
Table 2. Summary of change in gait parameters from BASE to POST measured in multiples of MCID and symmetry upper thresholds.
Change in velocity in multi- Change in step length variability Change in swing time variability Change in step length symmetry Change in swing time symmetry
ples of MCID (6 cm/s) in multiples of MCID (0.25 cm) in multiples of MCID (0.01 s) with respect to normal threshold with respect to normal threshold
(1.08) (1.06)
preferred fast preferred fast preferred fast preferred fast preferred fast
Participant 1 0.3 (-) 0.7 (+) 2.0 (-) 0.1 (+) 0.4 (-) 1.0 (-) n/c n/c worsened n/c
Participant 2 0.4 (+) 0.5 (+) 3.2 (+) 5.2 (-) 0.2 (+) 0.2 (+) n/c n/c n/c n/c
Participant 3 2.6 (+) 1.1 (+) 4.2 (+) 7.1 (+) 0.3 (+) 0.5 (-) improved n/c n/c n/c
Change scores of 1.0 MCIDs or greater are in bold for emphasis. MCID = meaningful clinical important difference, (+) = improvement of gait parameter, (-) = worsening of gait parameter, n/c =
no change to symmetry.
Article No~e00208
Article No~e00208
demonstrated improved tolerance and endurance for bilateral MT training over the
intervention period. The number of movement repetitions performed by each
participant at their final MT session ranged from 8201093, which is in line with
the lower end of repetitions associated with neuroplastic change and/or recovery in
animal models neurologic injury (i.e. 600 repetitions of UE movement and
6001800 steps on a treadmill) [34].
Minor fatigue but no pain was reported during LE-MT sessions. Unfortunately, one
participant experienced an acute recurrence of pre-existing back pain outside of the
LE-MT intervention. Although the exact cause that precipitated this acute episode
was not identified, it is possible that it was related to the long-sitting position and
repeated bilateral hip flexion movements required by the intervention. Future work
will consider pre-existing back pain as a possible precaution for the LE-MT
intervention. Additionally, the next iteration of the MT device design and
intervention protocol will incorporate LE abduction/adduction movements that can
be alternated with the flexion/extension movement pattern. This will alleviate the
repetitive nature of current training protocol which may decrease the risk of
exacerbating a pre-existing chronic condition such as low back pain.
There was variation in the way participants performed the LE movements during
the sessions. During each session, Participants 2 and 3 would perform LE
movement repetitions until fatigue, take a rest and then recommence the LE
movement. This approach was associated with a steady increase in movement
repetitions and session duration over the 4 weeks. In contrast, Participant 1 started
out with this performance strategy, but switched to completing LE movements in
set blocks of 25 repetitions which were consistently followed by a rest. This
explains the sharp increase in the number of rest periods from Session 7 to 8. It
should be noted that while participants received standardized instructions to focus
on the mirror image of their leg and perform the bilateral movements to the best of
their ability, they were not instructed as to the number of repetitions to perform or
the manner in which to perform the movements (i.e. in set blocks repetitions or
repetitions to the point of fatigue). In keeping with the underlying purpose of
mirror therapy (i.e. to provide appropriate visual feedback of successful
movement), future work will include instructions to participants that prioritize
and reinforce the focus of attention on the mirror reflection of the leg rather than on
the number of movements performed in a session.
This study also demonstrated some changes in gait and motor impairment of the
leg. For instance, Participant 2 exhibited a decrease in step length variability at the
preferred pace. Participant 3 also showed decreased step length variability at
preferred and fast pace as well as increased velocity and improved step length
symmetry. Conversely, Participant 1 and 2 exhibited some negative gait changes
such as increased gait asymmetry and variability. Despite the negative changes in
Article No~e00208
gait, all 3 participants exhibited an improvement in LE motor control as measured

by the CMSA (Participant 1) and the NIHSS; Item 6Motor Leg (Participant 3) and
Item 7 Limb Ataxia (Participants 1 and 2). This variation in responsiveness to
MT across individuals with stroke has been noted in a previous case series [35].
Ultimately, the effects of this bilateral LE MT intervention will need to be
evaluated in a randomized controlled trial.
The rationale for training in-phase LE movement in order to improve gait function
which features antiphase LE movement could be questioned. However, it is
important to emphasize two points. First we present this bilateral LE-MT
intervention as an adjunct to conventional physiotherapy which typically includes
ample practice of anti-phase LE movement during gait training. Second, the
ultimate goal of MT is to restore the motor command and visual sensory feedback
loop that has been disrupted [36]. The illusion of intact movement of the affected
LE combined with bilateral LE movement can only be created with in-phase LE
movement when employing a mirror. Future work could investigate the use of
virtual reality and motion capture equipment such that the movements of the
unaffected LE could be superimposed over the affected LE while performing anti-
phase movements during walking. However, such an intervention would be far less
accessible in the clinical setting compared to the present MT device. Finally, we
reported changes in the ataxia item on the NIHSS scale which is typically used
during the acute phase of stroke. Future randomized controlled trials will include a
specific measure of ataxia more appropriate to the subacute and chronic phase of
stroke.
5. Conclusion
Mirror therapy is a simple and inexpensive adjunct intervention. The current study
demonstrates that a bilateral LE-MT intervention is easily performed and well
tolerated by individuals with chronic stroke. This study differs from two previous
studies on LE-MT post-stroke; the present intervention combined mirror therapy
with bilateral LE movements whereas previous work employed unaffected LE
movements only. Further investigation of this adjunct intervention is warranted
while considering pre-existing back pain as a precaution. The results of the present
study will be used to guide refinement of the mirror therapy device and training
protocol and will also inform the design of a randomized controlled pilot study.
Declarations
Author contribution statement
Lucas D. Crosby: Conceived and designed the experiments; Performed the
experiments; Analyzed and interpreted the data; Wrote the paper.
Article No~e00208
Stephanie Marrocco: Analyzed and interpreted the data.
Janet Brown: Contributed reagents, materials, analysis tools or data.
Kara K. Patterson: Contributed reagents, materials, analysis tools or data; Wrote

the paper.
Funding statement
This study was supported by a grant from the Physiotherapy Foundation of Canada
and the Neurosciences Division of the Canadian Physiotherapy Association. Kara
K. Patterson was supported by a personnel award from the Heart and Stroke
Foundation and the Canadian Stroke Network.
Competing interest statement

Some of the authors of this study (LC, JB, and KP) have signed an agreement with
a technology transfer and business development company to bring the device to
market.
Additional information
No additional information is available for this paper.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful for the support of Sari Shatil and Shelialah Pereira (Neuphysio,
London, ON) who provided assistance with recruitment and the facilities for data
collection. Finally, we would like to thank the participants without whom this
study would not have been possible.
References
[1] B. Brouwer, K. Parvataneni, S.J. Olney, A comparison of gait biomechanics
and metabolic requirements of overground and treadmill walking in people
with stroke, Clin. Biomech. 24 (9) (Nov 2009) 729734.
[2] R.W. Bohannon, A. Williams Andrews, M.B. Smith, Rehabilitation goals of

patients with hemiplegia, Int. J. Rehabil. Res. 11 (2) (1988) 181183.
[3] K.M. Michael, J.K. Allen, R.F. Macko, Reduced ambulatory activity after
stroke: the role of balance, gait, and cardiovascular fitness, Arch. Phys. Med.
Rehabil. 86 (8) (2005) 15521556.
[4] C.K. Balasubramanian, R.R. Neptune, S.A. Kautz, Variability in spatiotem-

poral step characteristics and its relationship to walking performance post-
stroke, Gait Posture 29 (3) (2009) 408414.
Article No~e00208
[5] K.K. Patterson, N.K. Nadkarni, S.E. Black, W.E. McIlroy, Gait symmetry
and velocity differ in their relationship to age, Gait Posture 35 (4) (2012)
590594.
[6] Canadian best practice recommendations for stroke care, In: M. Lindsay, G.
Gubitz, M. Bayley, S. Phillips (Eds.), 4th Edition, Ottawa : Heart and Stroke
Foundation of Canada, 2013.
[7] V.S. Ramachandran, D. Rogers-Ramachandran, Synaesthesia in phantom

limbs induced with mirrors, Proc. Biol. Sci. 263 (1996) 377386.
[8] B. Rosn, G. Lundborg, Training with a mirror in rehabilitation of the hand,

Scand. J. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. Hand Surg. 39 (2) (2005) 104108.
[9] C.S. McCabe, R.C. Haigh, D.R. Blake, Mirror visual feedback for the
treatment of complex regional pain syndrome (type 1), Curr. Pain Headache
Rep. 12 (2008) 103107.
[10] E.L. Altschuler, S.B. Wisdom, L. Stone, C. Foster, D. Galasko, D.M.E.

Llewellyn, V.S. Ramachandran, Rehabilitation of hemiparesis after stroke
with a mirror, Lancet 353 (1999) 20352036.
[11] V.S. Ramachandran, E.L. Altschuler, The use of visual feedback, in particular
mirror visual feedback, in restoring brain function, Brain 132 (Jul. 2009)
16931710.
[12] J. Collins, C. De Luca, The effects of visual input on open-loop and closed-
loop postural control mechanisms, Exp. Brain Res. 103 (1) (1995) 151163.
[13] A. Patla, How is human gait controlled by vision? Ecol. Psychol. 10 (3-4)
(1988) 287302.
[14] S.M. Schabrun, S. Hillier, Evidence for the retraining of sensation after
stroke: a systematic review, Clin. Rehabil. 23 (1) (2009) 2739.
[15] M.E. Michielsen, R.W. Selles, J.N. van der Geest, M. Eckhardt, G. Yavuzer,
H.J. Stam, M. Smits, G.M. Ribbers, J.B.J. Bussmann, Motor recovery and
cortical reorganization after mirror therapy in chronic stroke patients: a phase
II randomized controlled trial, Neurorehabil. Neural Repair 25 (3) (2011)
223233.
[16] C. Dohle, J. Pllen, A. Nakaten, J. Kst, C. Rietz, H. Karbe, Mirror therapy

promotes recovery from severe hemiparesis: a randomized controlled trial,
Neurorehabil. Neural Repair 23 (3) (2008) 209217.
[17] G. Yavuzer, R. Selles, N. Sezer, S. Stbeyaz, J.B. Bussmann, F. Kseoglu, M.

B. Atay, H.J. Stam, Mirror therapy improves hand function in subacute
Article No~e00208
stroke: a randomized controlled trial, Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 89 (3) (2008)
393398.
[18] H. Thieme, J. Mehrholz, M. Pohl, J. Behrens, C. Dohle, Mirror therapy for

improving motor function after stroke, Stroke 44 (1) (2012) e1e2.
[19] A.S. Rothgangel, S.M. Braun, A.J. Beurskens, R.J. Seitz, D.T. Wade, The
clinical aspects of mirror therapy in rehabilitation: a systematic review of the
literature, Int. J. Rehabil. Res. 34 (1) (2011) 113.
[20] D. Ezendam, R. Bongers, M. Jannink, Systematic review of the effectiveness

of mirror therapy in upper extremity function, Disabil. Rehabil. (2009) 115.
[21] S. Stbeyaz, G. Yavuzer, N. Sezer, B.F. Koseoglu, Mirror therapy enhances

lower-extremity motor recovery and motor functioning after stroke: a
randomized controlled trial, Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 88 (5) (2007)
555559.
[22] U. Mohan, S. Karthik babu, K. Vijay Kumar, B. Suresh, Z. Misri, M.

Chakrapani, Effectiveness of mirror therapy on lower extremity motor
recovery, balance and mobility in patients with acute stroke: a randomized
sham-controlled pilot trial, Ann. Indian Acad. Neurol. 16 (4) (2013) 634639.
[23] J.J. Summers, F.A. Kagerer, M.I. Garry, C.Y. Hiraga, A. Loftus, J.H.
Cauraugh, Bilateral and unilateral movement training on upper limb function
in chronic stroke patients: a TMS study, J. Neurol. Sci. 252 (1) (2007) 7682.
[24] M.E. Michielsen, M. Smits, G.M. Ribbers, H.J. Stam, J.N. van der Geest, J.B.
J. Bussmann, R.W. Selles, The neuronal correlates of mirror therapy: an fMRI
study on mirror induced visual illusions in patients with stroke, J. Neurol.
Neurosurg. Psychiatry 82 (4) (2011) 393398.
[25] J.H. Cauraugh, J.J. Summers, Neural plasticity and bilateral movements: a
rehabilitation approach for chronic stroke, Prog. Neurobiol. 75 (5) (2005)
309320.
[26] N. Arene, J. Hidler, Understanding motor impairment in the paretic lower

limb after a stroke: a review of the literature, Top. Stroke Rehabil. 16 (5)
(2009) 346356.
[27] G. Kwakkel, Impact of intensity of practice after stroke: issues for

consideration, Disabil. Rehabil. 28 (13) (2006) 823830.
[28] A.E. Chisholm, S. Makepeace, E.L. Inness, S.D. Perry, W.E. Mcilroy, A.
Mansfield, Spatial-temporal gait variability poststroke: variations in mea-
surement and implications for measuring change, Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil.
95 (7) (2014) 13351341.
Article No~e00208
[29] K.K. Patterson, W.H. Gage, D. Brooks, S.E. Black, W.E. McIlroy, Evaluation
of gait symmetry after stroke: a comparison of current methods and
recommendations for standardization, Gait Posture 31 (2) (2010) 241246.
[30] T. Brott, H.P. Adams, C.P. Olinger, J.R. Marler, W.G. Barsan, J. Biller, J.
Spilker, R. Holleran, R. Eberle, V. Hertzberg, Measurements of acute cerebral
infarction: a clinical examination scale, Stroke 20 (7) (Jul. 1989) 864870.
[31] C. Gowland, P. Stratford, M. Ward, J. Moreland, W. Torresin, S. Van

Hullenaar, J. Sanford, S. Barreca, B. Vanspall, N. Plews, Measuring physical
impairment and disability with the Chedoke-McMaster Stroke Assessment,
Stroke 24 (1993) 5863.
[32] S. Perera, S.H. Mody, R.C. Woodman, S.A. Studenski, Meaningful change
and responsiveness in common physical performance measures in older
adults, J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 54 (5) (2006) 743749.
[33] J.S. Brach, S. Perera, S. Studenski, M. Katz, C. Hall, J. Verghese, Meaningful

change in measures of gait variability in older adults, Gait Posture 31 (2)
(2010) 175179.
[34] C.E. Lang, J.R. MacDonald, C. Gnip, Counting repetitions: an observational

study of outpatient therapy for people with hemiparesis post-stroke, J. Neurol.
Phys. Ther. 31 (1) (2007) 310.
[35] J.A. Stevens, M.E.P. Stoykov, Using motor imagery in the rehabilitation of
hemiparesis, Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 84 (7) (2003) 10901092.
[36] F.J.A. Deconinck, A.R.P. Smorenburg, A. Benham, A. Ledebt, M.G.

Feltham, G.J.P. Savelsbergh, Reflections on mirror therapy: a systematic
review of the effect of mirror visual feedback on the brain, Neurorehabil.
Neural Repair (2014) 113.

DOI10 1016-j Heliyon 2016 E00208

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

DOI10 1016-j Heliyon 2016 E00208

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Received:

Despite improvements made in stroke rehabilitation, motor impairment and gait

Keywords: Health sciences, Medicine, Rehabilitation

2. Materials and methods

was obtained to review their physiotherapy documentation. These clinical notes

2.1. Bilateral lower extremity mirror therapy device

2.2. Bilateral lower extremity mirror therapy intervention

2.3. Intervention feasibility

2.4. Measuring change in gait and motor impairment

Table 1. Summary of clinical measure scores.

NIHSS CMSA (leg/foot)

BASE POST BASE POST

Participant 1 4 3 5/4 6/4

3.2. Observed performance during LE-MT

3.3. Changes in gait and motor impairment

gait, all 3 participants exhibited an improvement in LE motor control as measured

Stephanie Marrocco: Analyzed and interpreted the data.

Janet Brown: Contributed reagents, materials, analysis tools or data.

Kara K. Patterson: Contributed reagents, materials, analysis tools or data; Wrote

Competing interest statement

[2] R.W. Bohannon, A. Williams Andrews, M.B. Smith, Rehabilitation goals of

[4] C.K. Balasubramanian, R.R. Neptune, S.A. Kautz, Variability in spatiotem-

[7] V.S. Ramachandran, D. Rogers-Ramachandran, Synaesthesia in phantom

[8] B. Rosn, G. Lundborg, Training with a mirror in rehabilitation of the hand,

[10] E.L. Altschuler, S.B. Wisdom, L. Stone, C. Foster, D. Galasko, D.M.E.

[16] C. Dohle, J. Pllen, A. Nakaten, J. Kst, C. Rietz, H. Karbe, Mirror therapy

[17] G. Yavuzer, R. Selles, N. Sezer, S. Stbeyaz, J.B. Bussmann, F. Kseoglu, M.

[18] H. Thieme, J. Mehrholz, M. Pohl, J. Behrens, C. Dohle, Mirror therapy for

[20] D. Ezendam, R. Bongers, M. Jannink, Systematic review of the effectiveness

[21] S. Stbeyaz, G. Yavuzer, N. Sezer, B.F. Koseoglu, Mirror therapy enhances

[22] U. Mohan, S. Karthik babu, K. Vijay Kumar, B. Suresh, Z. Misri, M.

[26] N. Arene, J. Hidler, Understanding motor impairment in the paretic lower

[27] G. Kwakkel, Impact of intensity of practice after stroke: issues for

[31] C. Gowland, P. Stratford, M. Ward, J. Moreland, W. Torresin, S. Van

[33] J.S. Brach, S. Perera, S. Studenski, M. Katz, C. Hall, J. Verghese, Meaningful

[34] C.E. Lang, J.R. MacDonald, C. Gnip, Counting repetitions: an observational

[36] F.J.A. Deconinck, A.R.P. Smorenburg, A. Benham, A. Ledebt, M.G.

Вам также может понравиться